I'm not posting this (simply) to knock Hillary for her recent faux-outrage. Rather, this whole affair recounted at HP, and generally this recurrent challenge for the modern Democratic Party, is very interesting in itself. This is when Bill was really at his best in understanding the political landscape:

[Following the shock of the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress, enabled in great part by southern blue-collar Democrats...]

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement [...] was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail [...].

[...] Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

[...]

Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

Bill Clinton: "I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks."

If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America [...].

Full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

I'm not posting this (simply) to knock Hillary for her recent faux-outrage. Rather, this whole affair recounted at HP, and generally this recurrent challenge for the modern Democratic Party, is very interesting in itself:

<blockquote>
[Following the shock of the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress, enabled in great part by southern blue-collar Democrats...]

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement [...] was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail [...].

[...] Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

[...]

Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

Bill Clinton: "I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks."

If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America [...].
</blockquote>

Full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

I'm not posting this (simply) to knock Hillary for her recent faux-outrage. Rather, this whole affair recounted at HP, and generally this recurrent challenge for the modern Democratic Party, is very interesting in itself:

<blockquote>
[Following the shock of the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress, enabled in great part by southern blue-collar Democrats...]

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement [...] was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail [...].

[...] Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

[...]

Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

Bill Clinton: "I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks."

If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America [...].
</blockquote>

Full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

As an Obama supporter, the most disturbing news to me so far is the PA advertising backlash reported in one of the recent polls.

I am frankly concerned too about his ability to recover among die-hard Hillary supporters, and also in general his ability to win blue collar whites.

However, no matter how much these concerns get to me, I can't understand the bitter resentfulness of people like "Marginal Player" against his success.

In my most sober assessment, he is an excellent candidate who nevertheless may be vulnerable to some of the notorious cultural traps in American politics. Obama is successful because of his positive personal attributes, not because of illusions (though there may be) among his supporters.

On the other hand, the Clintons have created a tragedy of their own. I was an enthusiastic Clinton supporter since casting my very first vote for Bill in 1992, but Hillary has now made herself unacceptable to me in the way she has handled this campaign.

The list of low-ball, appalling, Rove-playbook tactics she's used recently has grown too long. I wish she hadn't gone this route, but she has. And she seems determined now to damage Obama enough to position herself for 2012.

What to do?

Potentially major intra-party problems now loom for either Obama or Hillary as nominee.

I think the best one can hope for at this point is that Obama will have a chance to turn a fresh page after this primary mess gets settled.